Q: Where does conflict come from?

It is strangely easy for us as human beings to see ourselves as separate from others … or in an ‘us’ while ‘the others’ consist of a ‘them’ — and, naturally, we regard ‘them’ as inferior to ‘us’ in every measure that matters.

In the same way that herd animals recognise their own and expel outsiders as intruders, we humans are tuned for the differences that define our ‘in’ group as apart from the ‘other’ group. And, we are ready for conflict. We expect it.

People have tried to explain the conflict between groups. Notably Tajfel’s experiments with ‘notional groups’ dismantled the until then widely-held idea that conflict between nations (scaled-up groups) resulted from competition for scarce resources creating a history of conflict that self-perpetuated.

Broadly, his work showed that very little is required for one group to regard itself as superior to another group — morally, intellectually, physically — you name it.

All that’s needed for Group A to think itself ‘better’ and more worthy and deserving than Group B is:

For Group A and Group B to ‘exist’

That’s all it takes. No history of conflict, no competition for scarce resources, no experience of the ‘other’ culture to assess and meaningfully evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the ‘other’ group. No knowledge. Not even a meeting…

All that’s needed: An IN group (‘us’) and and OUT group (‘them’). The rest is pure psycho-babble, or post-facto justification for decisions and evaluations already made on the basis of our bias.

So, be aware that ALL it takes for us to think badly of someone else (or a group of ‘someone elses’) is for them to NOT BE US. This, sadly, is where I see religious prejudice whether Christian or Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, Jew or Wasp, Scientologist or Methodist.

And if there is any disagreement about anything, or any competitive behaviour or aggression, well, that just reinforces the position. We will favour our ‘In group’ and show prejudice against the ‘out group’, thinking less of them, valuing their happiness less, judging them as inferior, and therefore justifying our own negative or unfair behaviour towards them — all based on nothing.

I’m OK, you’re not OK

Henri Tajfel is perhaps best known for his minimal groups experiments. In these studies, test subjects were divided arbitrarily into two groups, based on a trivial and almost completely irrelevant basis.

Participants did not know other members of the group, did not even know who they were, and had no reason to expect that they would interact with them in the future. Still, members of both groups began to identify themselves with their group, preferring other members of their group and favouring them with rewards that maximized their own group’s outcomes.

Subsequently, Tajfel and his student John Turner developed the theory of social identity. They proposed that people have an inbuilt tendency to categorize themselves into one or more ingroups, building a part of their identity on the basis of membership of that group and enforcing boundaries with other groups.

Social identity theory suggests that people identify with groups in such a way as to maximize positive distinctiveness; groups offer both identity (they tell us who we are) and self-esteem (they make us feel good about ourselves).

17 Comments »

I think all conflict comes from lack of resources.
Money, actual dollars, are an intrinsic and tangible expression of resources. So, I would have to say conflict is money. Simplistic, I know, but sometimes big and complicated ideas have their roots in the basest of concepts.

What about religious persecution? Sexism?
And why do ‘rich’ nations still plunder poor ones? Greed? No sense of ‘enough’ perhaps?

I have to say I find the Tajfel ‘notional groups’ stuff pretty persuasive, however. The other group doesn’t actually have to exist, you just need to be informed of them and they are (by definition it seems) perceived as inferior/unworthy.

But the fact underlying both these contrary positions is the same: fear of Apple.

So I’ve been wondering about that fear. Part of that fear is the ignorance that’s common, unfortunately, to our human condition – we seem to fear more what we least know about, whereas logic would dictate we ought to fear things we know more about.

Whatever, some of these commenters, despite protestations to the opposite, are patently ignorant of that which they so enthusiastically denigrate.

I agree somewhat with Mark Webster’s view, and generally enjoy his column (although he completely loses me on the 20% discount stuff. No way. Where did that $30bn come from and what non-cash benefits does it buy Apple? A lot.)

It seems to me the notional ‘Group A vs Group B’ thesis discussed in my post applies. – P

Money? More like ignorance. Most people, most everywhere have a range of similar concerns, of which money may be one or one aspect.

Managing work, potential redundancy; concern over children (any age!), much the same of parents. Managing spousal relationships, even getting on with the neighbours. Retirement lifestyle uncertainty. Paying taxes, political and/or religious tensions. Meeting hire purchase or mortgage payments – whatever.

If we could spend some patient, caring, close-knit, interactive, real-deal time with other ethnicities in their home and work surroundings, we just might get to understand that not only do we all bleed and breathe the same air, we have very, very similar hopes and fears.

Seems to be the role of too many to play up the differences and overlook the similarities.

My father tells me ‘gooks’ was also used to
de-humanise the North Koreans, during the
flare up, there, some time after the second
world war.

Wafa Sultan – well, what can be said beyond
the superlative? One very brave lady. When
I first saw her video clash with the Mullah
or whatever, I did wonder how her remaining
days would be numbered.

Articulate, passionate and to the point. The
religulous antagonist in the debate was out-
classed and out-manoevred. Really, he never
stood a chance.

In house critique is a tricky one. Just like
managing intrapreneurs, the corporate culture
can stultify when such things as groupthink
rear their ugly head.

However, much digression.

The other divisive factor of significance is
fear. When combined with ignorance, from which
it can often stem, it becomes one scary combination.
And the fear-factor instinct response is in our
genes. Were it not so, we may’ve become extinct
quite some time ago.

Yes, she is a marvel that Wafa Sultan. Gutsy, take-no-prisoners, hammering her point. Hard. Whew!

I’m sure this wonderful outspoken person has sincere friends urging her to ‘tone down’ her comments for her own safety, or to consider being ‘less inflammatory’ in her statements to, perhaps, increase her popularity — but by golly, she packs a punch, and it seems right.

I bet she drives her opponents crazy. Asperger syndrome (or tell it like you see it syndrome), do you think, by any chance?
(Like you, I felt a concern for her life, but is that just a prejudice — us both seeing ‘muslims’ as unable to face someone they label an ‘outspoken heretic’ without stoning them?)
—
I’m glad you mentioned groupthink — right on topic for a discussion about group A vs group B conflict (however membership of these groups is derived).

Personally I have been at both ends of that: giving a dog a bad name, and being the so-labelled dog.

It’s seductive and powerful when you’re in it … and like a goldfish in a bowl, the ‘water’ can be invisible to the inhabitants of the group. Easy trap. Labels are very dangerous.

My original point is that all it takes for ‘conflict’ is for there to BE two groups — often rapport is more or less instantly broken between them, and disdain, disregard and sadly, discourtesy become the currency.

It takes a visionary person in an “in group”/team to reach out to someone in “the other” and seek reconciliation. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it doesn’t. It can depend on what ‘surrender’ is being asked for peace, if it is.

[…] It’s also super-easy to jump to conclusions about someone we see as ‘opposing’ us, or our ideas. It’s easy to ‘make the critic wrong’, or to characterise them as ‘only saying that’ because they’re on the other team (or the ‘out group’, as we discussed in the origins of conflict). […]

[…] I just watched How to Train Your Dragon with my son and some friends … it’s a magnificent, heart-warming movie, which incidentally addresses one of the perennial themes of ThePaepae.com — recognising our fear of ‘the other’ or ‘the out-group’ (in this case, dragons) and that fear’s role in conflict. […]

[…] the ‘reasons’ for prejudice and conflict between different groups. (See my 2009 post Q: Where does conflict come from? which records Tajfel’s social psychology experiments … Henri Tajfel is perhaps best […]